• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Swarovski SLC 42 Binoculars (3 Viewers)

Bryce,

I took John's post as predominantly tongue in cheek. Poking fun at how "the forum" often makes fine distinctions based on price or performance, in this case with Swarovski's various product lines.

I chose to take it a step further and make it an issue about the biases that exist about the country of origin regardless of performance. It was my attempt to point out the similarity between the two issues....from my perspective of course.
 
Is it the distinct lack of rain ...... ?

The inability to find the *blatantly cheeky* smilie button ? 8-P

Or are you lot demonstrating proficiency in some sort of prelimiinary Ozzie entrance exam ?

Whateva it is, I swear you guys are becoming "drier than a dead dingo's d*nger !!" 3:)



Chosun :gh:
 
Bryce,

I took John's post as predominantly tongue in cheek. Poking fun at how "the forum" often makes fine distinctions based on price or performance, in this case with Swarovski's various product lines.

I chose to take it a step further and make it an issue about the biases that exist about the country of origin regardless of performance. It was my attempt to point out the similarity between the two issues....from my perspective of course.

Yes, I guess I have Dennisitist! Apologies. It just gets irritating when one binocular is labeled the greatest and pushed down our throats on every thread!!! Just getting grumpy I guess! :) Bryce...
 
..... But would disagree with you on a key matter - about the efficient mech. interfacing between product and user having "yet to make its way up the Alps". I'd expect this anyway from Swaro, and Leica and Zeiss, as a result of (to quote you again) "'bespoke' craftsmanship from ... historical masters". (Re my superior futurist attitude I confess I got carried away a bit with all this and forgot it for a while - thanks for reminding me.)

An interesting matter nearer topic - that special close focusing mecahnism, lost to the SLC in the new model. Has any user reported that they have benefitted from it? .....

Pomp, I think you're missing the point ...... while the Zeiss focusers are well regarded for precision and smoothness, as are Nikons "buttery smooth" focusers ..... there is enough evidence to say that Swaro's "User Interface" with regard to focuser design and execution is sub-par ..... far from the "cutting edge" of 1980's Toyota ("fridge on wheels") switchgear ! |8.|

Whatever legacy of reassuringly steady bespectacled craftsmen patiently tinkering away to the rhythmically calming 'tick-tock' of an old grandfather clock is long gone. The Swaro focus mechanisms of today just don't cut it. :scribe:

Sure, for $2K+ you would "expect" it ..... in fact for that amount of doh! you'd "expect" it to feel better than s*x !! |=\| .......
you'd "expect" it - but you just ain't gettin' it |!|

So I reiterate "All in all, in this day and age, it really shouldn't be that hard to design a precision focuser that feels absolutely sublime to the vast majority of the population ...... |^| "

As for any "logarithmic" gobbledegook - don't buy it ! See, RonE's explanation earlier in this thread here: http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2810259&postcount=114 (also Alexis Powell's post#105, and Henry Link's post#109)

Already hands on reports of the "new" SLC's "gritty" focus mechanism show that Tyrrol hasn't caught up with the 1980's ...... so while complexity and price has come down - "buttery smoothness" has not gone up (the Alps!) :cat:


Chosun :gh:
 
Thanks for that link, Pomp,. those were the comments from Holger I was looking for when I referred to the tradeoffs in close focusing in roofs:

"...So it continues: A close focusing point even below 2m - not useful, in fact rather harmful, because it increases the required travel for the focusing lens. But there is no space left - modern binoculars have to be compact, so they are forced to increase the power of the focusing lens, which in turn increases aberrations, which in turn have to be compensated by increasingly complex and expensive ocular designs.

"A high power focusing lens requires a high precision mechanics with low tolerances. But the test magazines tend to praise binoculars with fast focusers - from 2m to infinity within less than one turn, which cannot at the same time be precise. The result: With modern high-end glasses, the focusing precision has gone down, hardly any manufacturer who does not have serious troubles to cope with all those contradicting requirements. Whether the current high end binoculars will still perform after 20 years, as well as the older generation glasses are performing today? I doubt. Short term profit, shorter life cycles, that is what counts. Warranty times are already going down."

Doesn't sound like Ed agrees.

But to each his own. For close focus, you have the SV EL even though some users complain about all that focus travel and for more typical birding distances you have the newer, cheaper SLC.

Good to have choices, both in features and price points.

<B>

Brock,

While I agree with a lot of what Holger says here, especially vis a vis focusing lens power and aberrations - I'm not buyin' the mechanical mission impossible stuff. While manufacturers may experience "serious troubles" with all the conflicting requirements - I experience more than "serious troubles" believing that they can't get it bl**dy right for 2 Large or more a pop ...... |8.|

Zeiss can do it with their Victory FL's, and Nikon to a lesser extent, their EDG's ...... it's about time that the whole bleedin' lot of 'em consistently pulled their fingers out ....... :storm:

After all, Toyota was doin' it with 20c switchgear back in the 80's :hi:



Chosun :gh:
 
Brock,

While I agree with a lot of what Holger says here, especially vis a vis focusing lens power and aberrations - I'm not buyin' the mechanical mission impossible stuff. While manufacturers may experience "serious troubles" with all the conflicting requirements - I experience more than "serious troubles" believing that they can't get it bl**dy right for 2 Large or more a pop ...... |8.|

Zeiss can do it with their Victory FL's, and Nikon to a lesser extent, their EDG's ...... it's about time that the whole bleedin' lot of 'em consistently pulled their fingers out ....... :storm:

After all, Toyota was doin' it with 20c switchgear back in the 80's :hi:



Chosun :gh:

I kind of agree with Chosun on this particular issue, at the prices Swaro charges for their alphas they should manage to put enough into R&D to obviate the focus problem. Swaro's customer service is second to none and I've seen numerous posts about Swarovski gladly "tweaking" a customers new binocular to somewhat alleviate the problem but I would contend that for what an alpha cost the problem should be addressed before the unit is shipped.

Nikon had the diopter drift issue with some of the original EDGs (thankfully my beloved 7x42 wasn't one of them) but they totally redesigned the EDG II and even offered a new EDG II as a replacement for anyone having an issue with their EDG I. I personally like this approach of a complete redesign compared to leaving things as are and just "tweaking" customers units as needed. The focus on my EDG I, FL and Geovid are very consistent in the effort required to turn in both directions and as far as speed I find the Geovid a little slow, the Zeiss very fast, and the EDG just about right.

My experience with the Swarovision is limited to my son's 8.5x42 which I use/evaluate several months a year ( he only uses it during archery season) and to a 10x50 EL I tested for a couple of days. Optics and ergonomics were of course superb and while neither had a rough or "notchy" focus action they did vary a noticeable amount in the effort required to focus depending on the direction of focus.

If using a Swarvision as your primary glass on a regular daily basis I'm sure you would adapt to the point that you weren't even conscious of the discrepancy......it's just for +2,000.00 I don't think have to adjust, send it off to get it tweaked, etc. I would also add that my swaro exhibits exemplary optics, build quality, AND a very consistent focus action; however, being a Habicht I must say the very consistent focus action requires more effort than the norm.;)

Steve
 
...Whether the current high end binoculars will still perform after 20 years, as well as the older generation glasses are performing today? I doubt. Short term profit, shorter life cycles, that is what counts. Warranty times are already going down."

Doesn't sound like Ed agrees.

Brock,

As a member of the older generation I have very little interest in how well high end binoculars might perform two decades from now.

However, I can't help but comment that twenty years ago, in 1993, Swaro 10x42 SLCs were selling for $850 in local gun shops, or $1419 in 2013 dollars. That was a pretty steep price at the time. My new 8x42 SLC-HD was purchased recently for $1599 from Cameraland NY. Taking inflation into account, therefore, 20 years of technology development only added $180 today, or the equivalent of $108 back then.

Although Capitalism rules, progress is still made.

Ed
 
Last edited:
...
An interesting matter nearer topic - that special close focusing mecahnism, lost to the SLC in the new model. Has any user reported that they have benefitted from it? Gijs only mentions the presence of the system. Ed compares the "focusing" of the SLC and Sv. but doesn't specify close range. Looked up just now (no great fun) 5 user reviews of the SLC HD 8x42 and 31 of the Sv. 8.5x42 in the Eagle Optics site. Not one mentions focus action at close range. It is, of course, quite possible that the system works so well most users don't notice it! The one exception I found is a well-known optics site. The reviewer/s, after mentioning the "logarithmic" mechanism, actually test the close focusing separatley, and praise this, but for fine-focusing ability, so it seems they think the design slows down, not speeds up, the focusing there!

Yes, you've put your finger on it. Negative comments accumulate into mythical "problems," and drown out praise, which by it's nature is rather subtle. The most vociferous complainers are often those who neither own nor use the equipment, but, somehow feel it incumbent on themselves to openly condemn the manufacturer for grievances they don't really have.

That's the reality of an open marketplace, and there's no changing it.

With regard to the so-called "logarithmic" focuser, which I haven't analyzed as thoroughly I'd like to, it's not just "close range," but the focusing behavior of the system from near to far and in-between. This is hard to put into words, but I have the distinct impression that the gain of the focus wheel is somehow better matched to the visual accuracy requirements at each distance zone then a conventional SLC focuser.

In any case I have no personal grievance, since I already own an SLC-HD, although I am a bit sad that future users will not experience this great design feature.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Yes, you've put your finger on it. Negative comments accumulate into mythical "problems," and drown out praise, which by it's nature is rather subtle. The most vociferous complainers are often those who neither own nor use the equipment, but, somehow feel it incumbent on themselves to openly condemn the manufacturer for grievances they don't really have.

That's the reality of an open marketplace, and there's no changing it.

With regard to the so-called "logarithmic" focuser, which I haven't analyzed as thoroughly I'd like to, it's not just "close range," but the focusing behavior of the system from near to far and in-between. This is hard to put into words, but I have the distinct impression that the gain of the focus wheel is somehow better matched to the visual accuracy requirements at each distance zone then a conventional SLC focuser.

In any case I have no personal grievance, since I already own an SLC-HD, although I am a bit sad that future users will not experience this great design feature.

Ed

I'll encourage Swarovski to grandfather SLC/HD owners into the elite status category. Seems fair.

PS
Capitalism IS progress.
 
CJ, sorry I've not been clear (or too brief again). Meant: yes, I'm aware (have read) of the Swaro. focus knob problem; however, what applies to this co. is not catching up with Jap.-style efficiency but continuing the old tradition of quality; so the lapse is in effecting that. Did myself intend the word "expect" to be taken as stressed. From another angle, wasn't quite thinking on the lines of greybeards working by grandfather clocks but of that ethos being effected in a modern setting.

Re the mechanism afraid there's been a near-180⁰ misunderstanding! Not only had I read those posts but what I said is based on them. To re-run: as those posts explain, focus knob movement is proportional (linearly) to dioptre variation, but not to user instinct, in the closer focus range; the mechanism is intended to remedy that (so says Gijs - conveying Swaro's info - and surely Sw. themselves in the patent application); but no user as far as I could find has reported on benefitting from this. I add that maybe it's because it works so well! (Ed has then expanded on that.) Perhaps a member/s who has an SLC HD or Sv. - is it featured also in the older SLC Neu? - might like to test it for this vs another close-focusing bin. Wil myself do so when I get a chance. BTW, am still powerfully curious about the apparently 20-piece mechanism.

Re comments on progress and capitalism in the recent posts up here, I responded to Holger in that other thread: "I'd guess - vaguely, with almost no relevant technical knowledge - that what are compromises today may not remain as such. Specific marketing needs may evoke research which improves together general parameters that are today related inversely."
 
CJ, sorry I've not been clear (or too brief again). Meant: yes, I'm aware (have read) of the Swaro. focus knob problem; however, what applies to this co. is not catching up with Jap.-style efficiency but continuing the old tradition of quality; so the lapse is in effecting that. Did myself intend the word "expect" to be taken as stressed. From another angle, wasn't quite thinking on the lines of greybeards working by grandfather clocks but of that ethos being effected in a modern setting.

Re the mechanism afraid there's been a near-180⁰ misunderstanding! Not only had I read those posts but what I said is based on them. To re-run: as those posts explain, focus knob movement is proportional (linearly) to dioptre variation, but not to user instinct, in the closer focus range; the mechanism is intended to remedy that (so says Gijs - conveying Swaro's info - and surely Sw. themselves in the patent application); but no user as far as I could find has reported on benefitting from this. I add that maybe it's because it works so well! (Ed has then expanded on that.) Perhaps a member/s who has an SLC HD or Sv. - is it featured also in the older SLC Neu? - might like to test it for this vs another close-focusing bin. Wil myself do so when I get a chance. BTW, am still powerfully curious about the apparently 20-piece mechanism.

Re comments on progress and capitalism in the recent posts up here, I responded to Holger in that other thread: "I'd guess - vaguely, with almost no relevant technical knowledge - that what are compromises today may not remain as such. Specific marketing needs may evoke research which improves together general parameters that are today related inversely."

Pomp, perhaps any confusion as a result of your brevity, arises from too fw vwls?! ;)

The issue for Swaro with regard to the focusing mechanism, is not so much "catching up with Jap.-style efficiency" , but, catching up on the "Quality of Design and Construction Execution" ..... as you say "the lapse is in effecting that" "in a modern setting" ..... which the Japanese just happened to attend to 25 years ago! :king:

As for Gijs and the mechanism - you have truly lost me! The only logarithms that exist are in high school text mathematics books! Any changes to the new SLC focusing mechanism are to reduce complexity and cost - not alleviate users dioptric percerption confusion! ;)

It would have been nice if they'd also perfected the "operational mechanics" and "feel" of the mechanism though ...... Think Lexus ..... :t:

And as for your response to Holger elsewhere - Bravo! I applaud your fine wordsmithery - however, kindly chuckle at the ultimate illogical vaguarisation of it all! |:d| ..... (perhaps Swaro also have airy-fairy :hippy: futurists employed as mis-cast Design Engineers .....) :-O


Chosun :gh:
 
The new SLC 8x42 is a nice product. I like the new rubber armoring, and the new focus mechanism works much better than that on the SLC HD or Swarovision 8x32. Ok..it's not silky smooth like Nikon EDG, but it's smooth - in both directions!

I think I'm going to buy this new Swarovski SLC even if I already own two great binoculars - Nikon EDG 8x42 and the Nikon 8x32 SE!
 
Bit off topic, but just wondered if Swaro scopes have dicky focus action as well, or is the helical system they use zeissnikoleicable.
 
CJ, re the fine (=vague, annoying) words, I thought I had pulled it off! Actually, did feel embarrassed when I looked that up to copy but hoped readers would manage to crack it without too much difficulty.

As for the mysterious "logarthmic" mechanism, I see the problem is not just too few vwls, but consonants, everything. One more re-run, expanded: as those posts explain, focus knob movement - as it results from the standard mechanism in bins generally - is proportional (linearly) to dioptre variation, but not to user instinct, in the closer focus range - i.e. you need to turn it much more for small distance ranges close in than farther out; the mechanism - patented by Swaro. for the present Swarovision and SLC (possibly earlier for the EL or the SLC Neu) - is intended to remedy that (so says Gijs - conveying Swaro's info - and surely Sw. themselves in the patent application) - by speeding up focus speed at close range; but no user as far as I could find has reported on benefitting from this. I add that maybe it's because it works so well! Note that the new SLC excludes, not introduces, it!

Re Lexus, what springs to mind if I think of a comparison is: Nikon lesser and EDG - Toyota basic and Lexus; Swaro, and Leica and Zeiss - your "historical masters" - old ethos modernised. Have I got the wires crossed? I do admire neat Jap. looms, but that's the way things are inside the old coconut!
 
Pomp, firstly, am somewhat disappointed not to receive praise for my invention of a new term:- "vaguarisation" .....
...... a generalisation - only more vague ..... 3:)

Secondly, this whole "logarithmic focuser" hulabaloo.

This is somewhat perplexing to my mind. Perhaps no-one has reported on it because it does not exist? (o)< The 'BigFoot' of Birdforum - often found in the mouths of several infamous posters :eat: yet outside of that, largely mythical. I am not aware of any, *special* logarithmic focusing mechanism on the SLC HD, or the Swaro EL SV, as no mention of it has been made in any Swarovski marketing that I am aware of, as you will see by a perusal of the "thoroughly modern" EL microsite, here: http://el.swarovskioptik.com/en/nature/intro/

From what RonE, and Henry Link have said, the nature of movement of all mechanisms is "logarithmic" with reference to dioptric scale v's degrees rotation of the focus wheel, yet all focus ratio's in the experience of both are linear. Of different speeds (ratios) - but all linear. There is no variable ratio focuser, save for the Pentax Papilio, and Brunton Epoch, and I must admit I have my doubts about that one as well.

Any such real "logarithmic variable focus" would need something like a mini CVT to equalise the differing forces that the sensitive could detect. I have often heard the report of different focusing tensions in different directions - but never in regard to different distances .....

Unless Gijs has some other information, I would think it possible that the description in the 2010 test is an erroneous statement, with any confusion perhaps arising out of the combination of logarithmic nature of all focus wheel movement in diopters, and the unusually close focusing distance of 1.5m.

And yet Gijs seems to make reference to "the absence of the relatively complicated mechanism for the close focus facility" in post#54 of the New Swaro Pockets thread. Certainly Ed seems to be of this belief also, and I must admit I had a similar question to yours (post#110) of this thread, ie. "In dimensions, possibly, but in number of components?" :h?:

And what is this "patent" that you refer to? (there's the famous one of course to do with the diopter adjustment integrated into the focus wheel - the real reason for the threats to "cease and desist" that Swaro issued to Nikon, and forced the redesign of the EDGI to the EDGII - nothing to do with the open bridge design in the slightest :)

So questions need to be answered! :brains:

I would like to see details of the SV and SLC-HD focus mechanism designs vs the (new) SLC design. I would like to see technical illustrations /video simulations. I would like to see the list of the deleted components, and their function, and result. And I would like to see a table each, of the SV and SLC-HD focus movement in diopters vs distance, and how any supposed "logarithmic mechanism" compares to a normal table of same. :cat:



Chosun :gh:
 
Last edited:
Ed,

For some reason, the subtleties of the SLC HD focus mechanism had escaped me, and I did not notice it when I tested the binocular. Part of the reason is that I have pretty much stopped reading the marketing literature of any and all of the manufacturers, being weary of the all-too-frequent hyperbole and false claims made in them. I also do not tend to look very close very often when I'm out in the field, so focus behavior in the 2-10 meter range is not high on my list of things to pay particular attention to. I usually just measure the shortest focusing distance and the amount of focus wheel rotation needed to go from 10 m - 1 km.

I'll try to go and take a look at one while they are still available, and do a little bit of crude testing with focus wheel movement needed to compensate between my glasses vs. naked eye at different distances to see what kind of differences there are compared to Swarovisions.

I fully agree that it is regrettable that, for reasons known best to them, people who haven't bought, used, or sometimes even tested certain binocular models seem to feel the need to criticize them over and over again. Personally, as regards Swaro focusing mechanisms, I have tested a lot of them, and have just taken the uneven resistance between close-to-far and far-to-close focusing directions as an unavoidable (which it is, since the mechanism has a spring that compresses in one direction and expands in the other, which takes energy, which comes from your finger) and harmless consequence of the chosen design. A similar spring is used in the Zeiss HT models, but perhaps due to their larger-diameter focusing wheel, there have not been many complaints about it.

Torview,

Regarding the off-topic question on the helical focusers on Swarovski's scopes, they tend to be smooth and fairly lightly moving, with no notchiness. The gearing is considerably slower than in Nikon Fieldscopes, which in my opinion is a good thing. Accurate focus is easy, and large adjustments of distance reasonably quick. I like them better than Zeiss or Leica knob focus systems. I used Nikon Fieldscopes for about 15 years and got well used to them and liked them, but although they are much quicker, the extremely small nudges to the helical focus ring needed to acquire perfectly sharp focus makes them more problematic in use.

Kimmo
 
I would like to see details of the SV and SLC-HD focus mechanism designs vs the (new) SLC design. I would like to see technical illustrations /video simulations. I would like to see the list of the deleted components, and their function, and result. And I would like to see a table each, of the SV and SLC-HD focus movement in diopters vs distance, and how any supposed "logarithmic mechanism" compares to a normal table of same.

CJ, I would like to see exactly those things - my point!

somewhat disappointed not to receive praise for my invention of a new term:- "vaguarisation" ... a generalisation - only more vague

Now that definition - isn't that itself ... oh never mind!

Well, myself am somewhat disappointed not to receive praise for laborious searches in BF and elsewhere for the mystery mechanism.

Here's all I found (as I recall now).

Googling for "swarovski logarithmic focus":

• In the Gijs report: "... Swarovski has developed a particularly clever focusing wheel that uses logarithmic speed. In other words, around one rotation changes the focus from infinity to just a few metres, with the remaining rotation adjusting the short distance down to 1,5 metres. This means that the binoculars can very quickly be set to large distances, while remaining sufficiently fast and very precise at short distances. The new Swarovski SLC-HD’s also have a focussing wheel with logarithmic speed ... The cleverly designed logarithmic focusing wheel enables fast focusing from infinity down to 1,5 metres ..."

• Next, the text in the review site who seem to have got it wrong.

Googling for "swarovski slc" > Images:

• The only cutaway pic leads to the foll. link and web page, and 2/3 way down this is the diagram I have said above is too small to show detail with the caption "Patented focusing wheel for rapid focusing". Seems the retailer is copying material in Swaro's site at the time. I'm assuming this is it. http://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Swarovski_SLC_15x56_WB_Binoculars_

Done! (I.e. *I* am done!)

About the mechanism I can only conjecture: a variable-pitch worm and slider system? Thinking of variable-ratio rack-and-pinion steering. Or this result achieved by length and positioning of levers and pivots? (Seem to remember such a thing in v-r. steering but cannot find that just now by googling.)

Over to whoever.

PS. Your PS in the "footer" section deserves to be moved up. (Ha. Ha.)
 
The chart Ron (Surveyor) posted below should help anyone trying to determine if a focuser has anything unusual about it.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2810259&postcount=114

If the focuser is a conventional single speed type it will show the same ratios as this chart. The 42 diopter change in focus from 5' (1.5 M) to infinity will break down the same way. Regardless of the overall focusing speed it will take about half the total focuser rotation needed to change from 5' to infinity just to change the focus from 5' to 10' (1.5 M to 3 M). The other half of the total rotation will be about equally divided between 1/4 of the total to change the focus from 10' to 20' and 1/4 to change from 20' to infinity.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top